Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

This is a discussion on Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by OldVet
"They can't!" "They can't!" "They can't!"
And then they do.
They did . In Texas, they did 140 years ago. The ...

They did. In Texas, they did 140 years ago. The law in Illinois, very similar to the law Texas passed in 1871, that banned all public possession of handguns was just ruled unconstitutional. The judges on the 7th Circuit basically laughed all these nonsense "rational basis" arguments we're hearing here out of court. They can still, but it's going to cost the governments a lot of money in legal fees.

G10 nails this one. We tend to feed the Antis the ammunition they fire back at us.

Appeasement has never worked with the anti-gun crowd, and it never will. They don't want just some of our guns. They don't just want all of our guns. They want complete control over us. "We" aren't feeding the Antis anything. "We" didn't go into a school and start shooting kindergartners. "We" didn't commit all those gun murders and other crimes. "We" didn't go on any shooting rampages with "assault weapons." We didn't do any of that, but the antis are still targeting "us" anyway, and they are never going to stop. "We" will never convince them that "we" are worthy of freedom.

The part many here have difficulty with is that like it or not, The Supremes have blessed
state regulation, time and time again. Even without the specific words about regulations in Heller,
they have on innumerable occasions simply decided to not hear appeals of convictions for gun-law
violations. By doing nothing they endorsed the regulatory actions of the states.

So, since we have regulations (like it or not) it is best that folks be apprised in some way of what
those regulations are.

SCOTUS just overruled the long standing precedence on state regulation of guns from cases like Cruickshank and Slaughterhouse. They have incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the 14th to do it. You and all the other anti crowd have been in full evasion mode ever since that happened. It happened. Stop trying to pretend it didn't. It is a complete upheaval of the legal landscape. You've been in complete denial and evasion of this now through dozens of pages in two different threads.

What you guys have to offer doesn't even amount to a judicial rational basis argument. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just laughed this stuff out of court. The Heller court ruled. It's settled law. You can't deny our whole society their right to keep and to bear arms with "feel good" arguments, no statistics, and or statistics that support the plaintiffs. More guns equal less crime. Get out of the way, we're heading to the gun store, and you're holding us up.

I personally believe that one must be able to show proper safe handling of a firearm. As well as show some sort of competence with a firearm.

I have no right to defend myself unless I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction? Oh that's right. I saw the homeland security video. I can hide under a desk, or maybe use a pair of scissors. How much training is required to teach four rules of safe gun handling? How much firearm competence does it take to pull out a gun, point, pull the trigger, and shoot a scumbag who desperately deserves it at point blank range? It's so easy even children do a nice job of it.

SCOTUS just overruled the long standing precedence on state regulation of guns from cases like Cruickshank and Slaughterhouse. They have incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the 14th to do it. You and all the other anti crowd have been in full evasion mode ever since that happened. It happened. Stop trying to pretend it didn't. It is a complete upheaval of the legal landscape. You've been in complete denial and evasion of this now through dozens of pages in two different threads.

What you guys have to offer doesn't even amount to a judicial rational basis argument. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just laughed this stuff out of court. The Heller court ruled. It's settled law. You can't deny our whole society their right to keep and to bear arms with "feel good" arguments, no statistics, and or statistics that support the plaintiffs. More guns equal less crime. Get out of the way, we're heading to the gun store, and you're holding us up.

I had to read this several times...as I could not believe you were calling a fellow forum member "anti gun" because they have a different point of view on the subject than you. You continue to refer to the Heller court ruling like it was an end all to all discussions on gun regulation, when in fact, it left many things open.
The assault weapons ban in the 90's happened. Magazine limits and even different types of ammunition have been regulated in other states for years. Who's in denial?

And who is trying to deny anyone the right to carry here? It has not even been suggested. The subject matter of this thread was about,and still is mandated education for carrying a weapon in public, which is already mandated by some individual states. Nothing was ever suggested that it should be mandated for the simple purchase of a firearm.

Furthermore, what has Heller have to do with mandated education for carrying a weapon among the public? This was about the right to own a handgun within the home or in Federal Enclaves.

Later, the case of McDonald v Chicago affirmed that this is an individual right and that the state could not ban the possesion of a gun in the home, for the purposes of personal protection. Prior to the McDonald v Chicago, weapons were required to be disassembled and inoperable.

Neither case had any bearing on concealed carry, or determining what stipulations individual states could mandate to balance the right of the individual, vs the safety of the public.

Moreover, there is still much left to resolve, as to what constitutes unreasonable stipulations for the procurement of carry permits for state requirements.
So, its not as simple as "settled law". It made it very clear that the states had the right to regulate these provisions.

But dont take my word for it, read it for yourself, because apparently you have not.

None of these studies you've referenced have anything to do with the training that is actually being mandated by numerous states now. Nor do they have any apparent relation to the OP. For example, the first study you referenced studied less than 300 people over five years to determine effectiveness of accident reduction. I would expect that with such a small sample size the accident rate without any training would be close to zero. With a sample size that already has a near zero accident rate how could you draw any factual conclusions as to the effectiveness of training?

Maybe you did not read my last paragraph, or maybe it was not what you and some others want to hear. The data to answer those questions does not and will not exist as it would be impossible to design a study or series of studies that would gather unflawed or unbiased data that would be in any way scientifically sound.

My opinion was simply that, based on the available data, it it certainly probable, if not all but certain, that there is a clear association between individuals who receive firearms training and risk reduction as it relates to accidents or inappropriate handling of firearms, as well as the fact that training improves performance in the handling of firearms. All of the studies cited reached statistical significance using standard analytical methods. Opinions to the contrary don't change that fact. If you concede that this is true, how could you possibly argue that even a basic, credible gun safety class is unreasonable? In many states you cannot get a license to carry a shotgun in an open field and shoot a dove without a similar class.

Most everyone on this forum has an opinion. I've offered mine and based it on data. I've not seen anyone of the opposing thought offer one thread of data to support their opinions, simply their own feelings--that's fine, but it makes for a weak debate. It continues to amaze me that any gun owner would be so arrogant in taking the opinion that they are above receiving training in handling, carrying or using a firearm. I train and practice every chance I get, and I carry every day, work or play. So that's my opinion.....I'm done with the topic.

I have no right to defend myself unless I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction? Oh that's right. I saw the homeland security video. I can hide under a desk, or maybe use a pair of scissors. How much training is required to teach four rules of safe gun handling? How much firearm competence does it take to pull out a gun, point, pull the trigger, and shoot a scumbag who desperately deserves it at point blank range? It's so easy even children do a nice job of it.

Reading this, especially the last two sentences, are very enlightening of where you are coming from. And to a degree that I believe, even those opposed to regulated training for CC would take an exception.

I have no right to defend myself unless I can demonstrate that to your satisfaction? Oh that's right. I saw the homeland security video. I can hide under a desk, or maybe use a pair of scissors. How much training is required to teach four rules of safe gun handling? How much firearm competence does it take to pull out a gun, point, pull the trigger, and shoot a scumbag who desperately deserves it at point blank range? It's so easy even children do a nice job of it.

The point I was making that ANYBODY is capable of learning proper safety measures, and being capable of being competent with a firearm. I'm not asking for tactical training here. But would you hand a firearm off to somebody who has no clue of the operation of said firearm, and say "have a good day!" without giving them any sort of safety education or at least showing them how to fire it? Do we just hand car keys over to 16 year old children with no instruction and say "good luck!". I'm not asking for stricter qualifications. I'm just fine with PA having no required training. I just wouldn't be opposed to it. And I would encourage anybody who wants to carry a firearm to become proficient with it.

And I did state that I'm almost certain that a large portion of successful self defense shootings are likely done by people with practically zero training, or even zero knowledge of firearms. I'm not a training snob, but I do think it's a good idea for somebody, at least on their own, to train, if they want to have an edge, be more prepared, and far more capable of using that firearm in self defense when needed.

Oh good. You want to bring up that analogy. Let's see if that works. I propose a blanket ban on speaking in public for anyone who has not registered with the government, submitted to a background check and completed government mandated training. We'll get to how the majority will define that training curriculum in a minute. I propose a blanket ban particularly on the preaching of any religious topics under similar regulations as speaking in general. Again, we'll get to the government mandated training curriculum for that later as well. That should really be an interesting topic. While we're at it, we're going to have to ban certain topics like Mohammed's mother and sexual proclivities altogether, because like pistol grips, that kind of sounds real dangerous. I'll write that down for my training curriculum so I don't forget later.

It's not an analogy, it is a fact. The government already does place restrictions on speaking, religion, the press, etc. They restrict what you can say, where you can say it, and how loud you can say it. You cannot threaten to kill people, you can't print false statements about people, and you can't force prayer in school.

You see we need to regulate the 1st Amendment because speech is dangerous. People get killed over speech all the time, and this is a public safety issue. I understand your rights and all that, but like you said, your freedom is open to restrictions. You can't just say anything you want. We have to balance public safety, not to mention the opinion of the majority, against these quaint 200 year old ideas about freedom and the government.

I didn't say we needed to regulated, I said the government already did regulate it.

You could argue that, but there is a reason those things weren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The founders never set out to prevent the government from infringing on all our freedoms. They set out to prevent the government from infringing on the fundamental rights we would need to stop tyranny. That's why your tired old analogy fails, as it always does. Driving is not a fundamental right.

Those things were specifically enumerated in the Constitution...in the Ninth Amendment.

That's exactly what you are proposing. You're proposing to give the government the power to deny gun ownership to everyone, and let's stop pretending this power to mandate training will only be applied to public carry.

Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned that gun ownership should not require permits or registration and that gun ownership should not be denied to anyone. I also never stated that public carry should be denied.

Oh sure. You don't want to deny everyone their rights, just those that want to exercise their right in public. Then again though, if we let the government ignore the bear portion of the 2nd Amendment, what protection do we have left for keep?

I never stated I wanted to deny anyone the right to carry in public. I stated that it was socially responsible to require a person to receive legal and self defense training and to have them demonstrate shooting proficiency prior to issuing a carry permit.

If you want to have an honest discussion you have to stop creating straw men and argue the points I actually made.

I had to read this several times...as I could not believe you were calling a fellow forum member "anti gun" because they have a different point of view on the subject than you.

What I hear on this forum and in this thread is the same attitudes and arguments we just heard in congress and around the country. The laws you are advocating are an important part of a scheme of regulation that is effective at keeping millions of people from carrying firearms in public. It's anti-gun and the laws you're advocating are unconstitutional. So, if you are going to support anti-gun laws, I and plenty of others are going to call you on being anti-gun.

You continue to refer to the Heller court ruling like it was an end all to all discussions on gun regulation, when in fact, it left many things open.
The assault weapons ban in the 90's happened. Magazine limits and even different types of ammunition have been regulated in other states for years. Who's in denial?

And there you go. You touch on Heller and then go back to rationalizing laws that were passed before Heller and have never been tested against Heller. The anti-gun crowd went around the country bragging about Heller as if it was a ruling that favored their agenda. Here's another area where you seem to align with the anti-gun crowd. It doesn't favor the antis agenda of regulating guns out of existence.

And who is trying to deny anyone the right to carry here? It has not even been suggested. The subject matter of this thread was about,and still is mandated education for carrying a weapon in public, which is already mandated by some individual states. Nothing was ever suggested that it should be mandated for the simple purchase of a firearm.

Who are you kidding? These laws are keeping millions from exercising their rights. Have you read the 2nd Amendment? You know, keep and bear? There's no differentiation giving the government more authority over one as compared to the other. What it says is that the government has no authority over either.

Furthermore, what has Heller have to do with mandated education for carrying a weapon among the public? This was about the right to own a handgun within the home or in Federal Enclaves.

Did you read the Heller decision, or did you just read all the Brady camp propaganda bragging about how it favored their agenda? They held the 2nd Amendment was an individual right to self defense using common firearms. That holding is applicable to both keep and bear. They also held that a rational basis argument defending gun regulation could not stand against such a fundamental right.

Later, the case of McDonald v Chicago affirmed that this is an individual right and that the state could not ban the possesion of a gun in the home, for the purposes of personal protection. Prior to the McDonald v Chicago, weapons were required to be disassembled and inoperable.

And now we have the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that has held that Illinois' law banning public possession of firearms is unconstitutional. My arguments parallel their interpretation of Heller. Your arguments were laughed out of court. They specifically ridiculed gun statistics that favored the plaintiffs. They specifically ridiculed efforts like yours to re-litigate the rational basis approach to defending these anti-gun laws. They specifically ridiculed the concept that the government had more authority over bear than keep. Heller is now binding law. It's striking down laws like these all over the country. You can keep on pretending it didn't happen, just like the anti gun crowd crowing in Washington right now, but it happened. Get used to it.

Neither case had any bearing on concealed carry, or determining what stipulations individual states could mandate to balance the right of the individual, vs the safety of the public.

I'm not convinced it has no bearing on concealed carry. That we have an individual right to self defense, and that may very well have bearing on concealed carry. I agree it doesn't have a lot of bearing for the foreseeable future. However, this discussion was prefaced by a long debate about Texas where open carry of handguns is completely banned. The mandated training as part of a scheme of laws that prohibits millions from exercising their right is unconstitutional. Heller has direct bearing, and we may see how it plays out in 180 days in Illinois if they pass only CHL laws. And read the Heller opinion, the minority opinion talked all about balancing the right vs the public. It was overruled.

Moreover, there is still much left to resolve, as to what constitutes unreasonable stipulations for the procurement of carry permits for state requirements.
So, its not as simple as "settled law". It made it very clear that the states had the right to regulate these provisions.

It's settled law that all laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment have to at least meet intermediate if not strict scrutiny. As we saw in the Illinois case, the whim of the majority as to reasonable and common sense isn't going to cut it anymore. Start getting used to the idea of strong and compelling interested tailored to meet those interests in the least restrictive way possible.

The point I was making that ANYBODY is capable of learning proper safety measures, and being capable of being competent with a firearm. I'm not asking for tactical training here. But would you hand a firearm off to somebody who has no clue of the operation of said firearm, and say "have a good day!" without giving them any sort of safety education or at least showing them how to fire it? Do we just hand car keys over to 16 year old children with no instruction and say "good luck!". I'm not asking for stricter qualifications. I'm just fine with PA having no required training. I just wouldn't be opposed to it. And I would encourage anybody who wants to carry a firearm to become proficient with it.

Who is handing firearms off to untrained clueless people? That analogy is what really gets under my skin. In your analogy, it's the government. The government denies everyone's rights and then they get to decide the criteria to hand us little people what ever guns they feel like we can have. People aren't clueless, and we don't need a nanny state.

And I did state that I'm almost certain that a large portion of successful self defense shootings are likely done by people with practically zero training, or even zero knowledge of firearms. I'm not a training snob, but I do think it's a good idea for somebody, at least on their own, to train, if they want to have an edge, be more prepared, and far more capable of using that firearm in self defense when needed.

So you agree that little or no training at all is required in order for a firearm to be used to save lives and prevent crime, yet you are advocating the mandated training as part of a scheme of laws that are preventing millions from exercising their rights.

Let me ask you. Why only mandate the training for CHL? Why not open carry? Why not for all gun owners? Isn't a high powered rifle in the hands of someone who "has no clue" a public safety concern whether he's out in the open or behind a piece of sheetrock? Should the government just hand out guns to these clueless people without training?

Personal responsibility should be mandate.. I dont like nanny type of government telling people that they have to get training. On the other hand, I sure hope if you carry that you either trained with someone who knows what they are doing, or made a decision to get training on thier own. I think taking personl responsibility to train and be extremely comfortable with what your carrying should be your own mandate, self discipline should be our mind sets!

It's not an analogy, it is a fact. The government already does place restrictions on speaking, religion, the press, etc. They restrict what you can say, where you can say it, and how loud you can say it. You cannot threaten to kill people, you can't print false statements about people, and you can't force prayer in school.

I noticed you didn't acknowledge what these training laws did to your analogy when you apply the same laws and the same rationale in support of the laws against the 1st Amendment.

I didn't say we needed to regulated, I said the government already did regulate it.

They haven't regulated the 1st Amendment the way you are advocating regulating the 2nd because it's unconstitutional.

Those things were specifically enumerated in the Constitution...in the Ninth Amendment.

Nonsense. Nothing is specifically enumerated in the 9th amendment. There's nothing specific about the word "others." It was impossible to specifically enumerate the "others." They enumerated the ones that were most pressing to the tyranny they had just faced and to those that were most crucial for their fight against that tyranny.

I specifically mentioned that gun ownership should not require permits or registration and that gun ownership should not be denied to anyone. I also never stated that public carry should be denied.

Are you advocating mandatory training in this thread? Then by definition, if you're advocating the government having the power to deny everyone their right unless they get the training. And that's what is happening. Millions are being denied their rights because of a scheme of onerous, burdensome and expensive laws including training, and you are supporting that.

I never stated I wanted to deny anyone the right to carry in public. I stated that it was socially responsible to require a person to receive legal and self defense training and to have them demonstrate shooting proficiency prior to issuing a carry permit.

You can't have it both ways. You have to deny their right before you can mandate the training. Otherwise the training isn't mandatory. It's obvious why you evaded applying the same concept to your own analogy on the 1st Amendment, because it was obvious that if the government could mandate training before they allow you to speak publicly, you wouldn't have a protected 1st amendment right at all.

I have not read all respondents but have noticed something that begged my comment:
The whole "fundamental/god given right" statement. The constitution is a legal document, the Ammendments are some of the terms of that document. Terms can be changed, and I some cases should be as times change. People of color were not originally included as citizens, they are now. Weapons training (when the 2a was drafted by HUMANS-not a diety) was part of everyday life. The framers never foresaw a time when an adult would not know the basics of firearm safety, heck when drafted an idiot with a gun could be stopped before an accident became a slaughter.

I don't advocate mag limits or such, but a minimum of safety KNOWLEDGE shoul be demonstrated prior to being allowed to go about on public with a firearm. It is for public safety which IS a province of the government ("Promote the general welfare"). Should one have to take a class to buy a gun, no. Carry one in public, no. But one should have to prove they are responsible to carry in, and potentially threaten the safety of, the public.

Then again, I feel that anyone carrying should be required to show LE said proof upon demand. I.E. there permit to carry in public. What one does on their property is their business, however in public it becomes the publics business, and government is the voice of the public.

Tennessee’s Handgun Carry Permit Scheme Is A De facto Ban For Poor People.

The other day I renewed my state issued Handgun Carry permit (HCP), the renewal cost me $50.00. But that made me stop and think about what it cost today to get a permit for the new applicant, because a friend of mine is in the middle of that process now…

People often say that TN is a gun friendly state.

That normally causes me to snort loudly, while spewing my coffee… or in a rare moment when I don’t have a coffee cup in my hands, just to bust out laughing at whomever said it. TN is far from anything, even remotely close to resembling, “a gun friendly state.”

But lets focus on the topic of my little rant. The state issued hand gun carry permit scheme and how this wonderful state has priced it (intentionally, I believe) out of reach of the poor, the working poor and the vast numbers of people who simply live paycheck to paycheck. And cannot afford to spend several hundred dollar on a piece of government issued plastic. Showing where you bowed down before the alter and laid offering at the feet of the almighty .gov, who graciously gave you state sanctioned permission to exercise one of your rights.

The state will tell you the permit costs $115.00, which that is mostly true, mostly… That’s how much you’ll have to fork over to the department of safety when you give them your application, BUT…

Before you get to this point, one must take a state required safety course, which on average costs about $75.00 and is 8 hours long… usually given on the weekends, occasionally on a Thursday or Friday at a few locations. Now if you’re like me you actually work for a living. And your job might require you to work those days… so now, you’ll have to take off a day from work without pay or burn a vacation day you otherwise wouldn’t have… so lets say you earn $10.00 per hour and you work 10 hours a day. That’s $100.00. Add that to the $75.00 for the course, plus the $115.00 to the state and were up to $290.00.

But wait, that’s not all!

The state requires a certified, state issued copy of your original birth certificate to accompany your application, which depending on what state you were born in can run you upwards of $50.00. For me it cost $25.00 so I’ll use that figure. Now were at $315.00, you have shelled out so you can exercise your God given, Constitutionally protected right. (void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, of course…)

Now recall I used the rate of $10.00 an hour as your pay. Probably a close average pay rate for this state, but how many of you make much more than that?

Now you might as well also add in the box of ammo for your required shooting test (50 rounds) and any other cost too, like the gas you’ll waste running to and from the course, then to and from the DMV, to one of the approved locations to get your fingerprints taken, (they don’t do them there)… then back to the DMV to finally give them all this paperwork… and you better hope its all in order too!

We’re talking about the poor and working poor here so think about this from their standpoint. Here I have demonstrated the permit is well over $300.00 for something the Constitution says is your right. Just like free speech, and your rights to trial by jury and to be free from unwarranted searches.

But in “Gun Friendly” Tennessee that will cost you well over $300.00

If your poor, that could well be an entire months rent, or many, many days worth of groceries.

So, it is my opinion that the wonderful gun loving state of TN has intentionally priced its handgun carry permit out of the reach of a great number of its citizens. This is/was intentional, just as in your face as all those unconstitutional Jim Crow laws of yesteryear, this is no different. Its a Poll Tax plain and simple. One designed to keep a right, just out of reach of many in this state.

Many who, arguably need to carry a firearm for protection due to where they might live than any other group.

Think about that, when was the last time you heard of a mugging in the upper crust neighborhoods of the rich and shameless?

What about the lower income neighborhoods of Memphis, Nashville or Chattanooga?

The cost of the HCP in the state of Tennessee amounts to a De facto ban, effectively prohibiting poor people from obtaining a permit to carry a firearm for lawful self defense.

The gun owners in this state need to wake up, stop lying to themselves and think for once in their lives.